-
8 core 2.93ghz VS 12 core 2.66ghz
Hi guys!
Facing the delays of the new mac pros with thunderbolt, I finally decided to buy the current models.My work flow is pretty simple (using snow leopard):
– Edit in final cut pro 7, render in final cut, using basic plugins (cross dissolve, 3-color correction)
– OMFs in Pro tools 9
– Compress with sorenson squeeze to h264The big question is: is more core better? Are my applications (FCP7 and squeeze) going to be able to use all these expensive cores?
According to this workflow, does it make more sense to have a 12 core Westemere clocked at 2.66 ghz (and more expensive) or just the 8 core 2.93ghz nehalem.
I really want to speed up the rendering part in fcp as well as the squeeze part AND keep this workflow intact. This one works for me.
I ve done some research on the web but could not find a clear answer. Maybe the pros who use these machines on a daily basis can help me out.
note: I am not using Q master. (no compressor)
Thanks guys!
-
10 Replies
-
Maybe I should have mentioned that I am editing in Prores 422 LT
-
Squeeze and FCP 7 don’t use the power of the 12 core machine to its fullest.
Compressor uses all cores, but you don’t use Compressor.
Do you intend to stay with FCP 7 indefinitely?
If you are thinking about CS5, you will definitely want the power.
-
I’m unsure of Squeeze’s ability to fully utilize multiple cores, but in the case of FCP, you will likely see better performance from 8 faster cores vs. 12 slower cores because FCP 7 and earlier don’t fully take advantage of multicore machines.
You may also want to consider the 6-core 3.33GHz Mac Pro if you can find one. It performs admirably in these tests posted on Bare Feats:
https://www.barefeats.com/wst10c2.html
-
I am probably not going to stay with FCP7 for ever… since its dead…
Probably avid. -
Avid currently is 32 bit and currently cannot take advantage either. That should change with MC 6 ..probably later this year,
If you can hold on until MC 6 is released, or more is known about it, you can make sure you buy the best hardware to work with it, Unfortunately, Avid has not released a great deal of info yet.
-
I went through a similar debate a little over a year ago. I decided to go with the 12 core box. The 8 core may be a bit faster for Final Cut today, but the 12 core is buying for tomorrow. Things very clearly moving towards multicore friendly solutions.
-
Yep I recall the same kind of talk about hyper-threading, and new CPUs, and new apps to take advantage of that. It was Windows and Intel kind of talk but essence is likewise. It was available for developers for years. A number of generations of software were gone and yet it seemed no one could bridled the raw power for full extend. How many generations of CPUs did Apple use since 2006? How many generations of software did they sell? In terms of utilizing of multi-core capacity Apple is far beyond Adobe which have never been a hardware company. Do you still believe that one day you’d be able to load effectively all 12 hundred cores of new tower? I hate to rain on your parade but it’s myth, blatant marketing lies, urban legend to squeeze every penny off you.
Sony PMW-EX3, Canon Mark II 5D, FCS3 in Moscow
http://www.mokaeff.com -
We can sit here and have an academic discussion about it, but instead I’ll just say thing things I’ve observed.
• Hardware development is going to multicore. MacPros with 24 logical cores (12 x2 for hyperthreading) are on the market. Dual core phones are on the market. Multicore is where the future is at.
• Clock speeds aren’t increasing. In fact they stopped increasing at about the time HyperThreading came on the scene. Physics pretty much says there’s a barrier and we’ve found it. To continue getting faster we need either a developmental breakthrough or we need segmented processing.
• Software development is moving to multicore. Adobe CS5.5 makes great use of multicore on my machine. I regularly see Activity Monitor showing 1600% processor usage out of CS5.5 apps. That may be only 2/3rds of what my machine can do, but it’s a lot faster than FCS. Final Cut X is supposed to be multicore aware. (I don’t have it, so I don’t have a clue.) People complaining if things aren’t multicore aware, and developers are responding.
• Video lends itself to segmented processing by virtue of being based on individual frames that can be treated separately.You can call it marketing if you want, but I would say it’s where things are headed.
-
My point is there is no reason to pay through your nose on a 12-core tower with wishful thinking that some day it’ll be able to work in full capacity. Comparative charts show beyond reasonable doubt that a difference in output between 12-core and 8-core tower is meager to say the least. Let me put it this way. Suppose you have fancy sports car, ferrari, but you can’t drive it faster than 60 MPH because higher octane gas, it requires to fire up its engine to full blast, has yet to come on some unspecified date in future as developers try to wrap their heads around some more pressing problems, namely new iPhone. Ridiculous. I prefer to pay fair price for a product capable of delivering on what was promised now, not tomorrow.
Sony PMW-EX3, Canon Mark II 5D, FCS3 in Moscow
http://www.mokaeff.com -
I suppose this is why there are different products on the market.
Cheers
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up